We begin today’s discussion with a fascinating episode from the Mishnah, found at the bottom line of Daf Kaf Dalet Amud Bet. The Mishnah recounts a situation where two witnesses came forward and testified, "We saw the old moon in the morning in the east, and the new moon in the evening in the west." This testimony immediately raises a halachic challenge. As we learned on a previous page, there is typically a 24-hour period of invisibility between the disappearance of the old moon and the appearance of the new moon. Therefore, seeing both on the same day would seem impossible. Because of this, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri declared, "They are false witnesses." Rashi explains that this is based on the established principle that the moon is concealed for 24 hours.
However, when these witnesses arrived at the court in Yavneh, Rabban Gamliel accepted their testimony. The Gemara will later explore how this was possible, given the apparent contradiction. The Mishnah then presents another case: two witnesses testified, "We saw the new moon at its proper time (on the 30th day), but on the following night (the 31st), it was not visible." Rabban Gamliel again accepted them. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, however, declared them false witnesses, offering a powerful analogy: "How can you testify that a woman gave birth on one day, and the next day her stomach is still between her teeth?" This vivid image implies that she is still heavily pregnant, making the previous day's testimony of birth impossible. Similarly, if the new moon appeared on the 30th, it should certainly be visible on the 31st. Rabbi Yehoshua agreed with Rabbi Dosa, stating, "I see your words correctly."
This disagreement was not merely theoretical; it had profound practical implications. The discussion centered on the month of Elul, which determines the date of Rosh Hashanah. Rabban Gamliel held that Rosh Hashanah would fall on the 30th, while Rabbi Yehoshua contended it should be on the 31st. This difference would, in turn, affect the date of Yom Kippur, with Rabbi Yehoshua's calculation placing it a day later. To prevent a schism within the Jewish people, Rabban Gamliel sent a message to Rabbi Yehoshua, issuing a decree: "I am commanding you that you must come to me on the Yom Kippur that falls out according to your calculation, with your stick and with your money." This was a public challenge, intended to force Rabbi Yehoshua to visibly violate his own Yom Kippur, thereby demonstrating his submission to the court's ruling and ensuring unity.
Rabbi Akiva found Rabbi Yehoshua distressed by this decree. Rabbi Akiva comforted him, explaining, "I can teach you that everything Rabban Gamliel did is valid." He cited the verse, "These are the appointed festivals of Hashem, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim." This verse, Rabbi Akiva explained, places the responsibility for establishing the new months and holidays in the hands of the court. "Whether they are at their correct time or not at their correct time, I have no festivals other than these." This means that the court's ruling, whether factually accurate or not, is binding. The power to sanctify the month rests with the court, as the verse explicitly states. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua should not be despondent; since Rabban Gamliel, as the Nasi, had issued the ruling, that day was indeed Yom Kippur, regardless of Rabbi Yehoshua's personal calculation.
Rabbi Yehoshua then approached Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, who had initially agreed with his position. Rabbi Yehoshua explained to Rabbi Dosa, "If we begin to question the ruling of Rabban Gamliel's court, then we would have to question every court that has stood from the days of Moshe until now." He cited the verse describing Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders ascending Mount Sinai. The Mishnah asks why the names of these seventy elders are not specified. The answer is "to teach that any three who constitute a court for Israel are considered as the court of Moshe." This anonymity prevents anyone from claiming that a contemporary court is inferior to past courts. Since the names of Moshe's elders are unknown, no one can compare them to current judges, thereby ensuring that every court in every generation holds the final say.
Inspired by this, Rabbi Yehoshua took his stick and money and went to Yavneh to meet Rabban Gamliel on the day that would have been Yom Kippur according to his own calculation. Rabban Gamliel stood up, kissed Rabbi Yehoshua on his head, and said, "Come in peace, my Rabbi and my student. My Rabbi in wisdom, and my student for accepting my words." The commentators note that while "go in peace" is typically used for the deceased, "come in peace" is appropriate for the living. The Gemara will later elaborate on this exchange.
A Baraisa then returns to the first dispute in the Mishnah, regarding the witnesses who saw the old moon in the morning and the new moon at night. Rabban Gamliel told the Sages, "I have a tradition from my grandfather: sometimes the moon takes the long path, and sometimes it takes the short path." This means that the 24-hour period of invisibility is not absolute; the moon's cycle can vary, allowing for the scenario described by the witnesses, and thus their testimony could be accepted. Rabbi Yochanan explains that the reason for this is found in the verse, "He made the moon for appointed times; the sun knows its coming." The sun follows a fixed path, but the moon's path can change, sometimes resulting in a shorter period of invisibility.
Other Rishonim, however, interpret this differently. They suggest that Rabban Gamliel accepted the witnesses because their testimony about the old moon in the morning was irrelevant; only their sighting of the new moon at night mattered. According to this view, the statement about the moon's "long and short paths" refers to an unrelated halachic principle about the moon's cycle, not the 24-hour invisibility period. The Gemara then recounts an incident involving Rabbi Chiyya. He saw the old moon on the 29th of Elul and was concerned because he wished to establish Rosh Hashanah on the 30th (making Elul a "deficient" month), which would separate Yom Kippur from Shabbat, a desirable outcome. If the old moon was visible on the 29th, it would be difficult to persuade witnesses to testify to a new moon on the 30th, as people would know the rules of the moon's cycle. Rabbi Chiyya, frustrated, picked up a clump of dirt and threw it at the moon, exclaiming, "Tonight we need to sanctify you, and you are still here? Go cover yourself!"
Rabbi (Judah the Prince) then instructed Rabbi Chiyya, "Go to Ein Tav and sanctify the new month there." This instruction has two interpretations: either Ein Tav was a place where the moon had not been visible on the 29th, making the sanctification more credible, or it was a clandestine location used during Roman decrees that prohibited sanctifying the new moon in Jerusalem. Rabbi also told him, "Send me a sign: 'David, King of Israel, lives and endures.'" This sign, Rashi explains, likens King David to the moon, whose kingdom, like the moon, started small and grew, symbolizing the growth and endurance of the Jewish people. The verse "His throne shall be like the sun before Me, like the moon, it shall be established forever" further connects David to the moon.
A Baraisa relates another incident: one time, the sky was very cloudy, but an image of the moon appeared on the 29th of the month. The people thought it was the new moon and wanted to establish Rosh Chodesh. The court also sought to sanctify it. Rabban Gamliel again stated, "I have a tradition from my grandfather: the new moon's cycle is not less than 29 and a half days, two-thirds of an hour, and 73 parts of an hour." Since the required time had not yet passed since the last new moon, what they saw could not have been the actual new moon, and thus Rosh Chodesh could not be established. To publicly demonstrate that the court had not sanctified the month, Rabban Gamliel delivered a lengthy eulogy for Ben Zuza's mother, who had passed away that day. He did this not because she was exceptionally deserving, but because eulogizing is forbidden on Rosh Chodesh (or Yom Tov). By delivering a eulogy, he signaled to the people that it was not Rosh Chodesh, and therefore the moon had not been sanctified.
The Gemara then clarifies the ambiguity in the Mishnah's account of Rabbi Akiva finding Rabbi Yehoshua distraught. A Baraisa explicitly states, "Rabbi Akiva went and found Rabbi Yehoshua when he was distraught." Rabbi Akiva asked him, "Rabbi, why are you so distraught?" Rabbi Yehoshua replied, "Akiva, I would rather be bedridden for twelve months than have Rabban Gamliel issue this decree upon me, forcing me to desecrate Yom Kippur according to my calculation." Rabbi Akiva then sought permission to repeat something Rabbi Yehoshua himself had taught him. With Rabbi Yehoshua's consent, Rabbi Akiva explained that the Torah uses the word "you" (referring to the court) three times in the context of establishing the festivals. This implies that the court's decision is binding "even if they err, even if they act intentionally, even if they are misled." Therefore, even if Rabban Gamliel's court made a mistake according to Rabbi Yehoshua's understanding, their ruling is valid. Furthermore, Rabbi Akiva added, "even if you act intentionally" (by following Rabban Gamliel's ruling against your own calculation), it is still acceptable. Rabbi Yehoshua was deeply comforted, exclaiming, "Akiva, you have consoled me! You have consoled me!" He was consoled for the court's potential error and for his own act of submission.
The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yehoshua's conversation with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. A Baraisa reiterates the question: "Why were the names of these elders not specified?" The answer: "So that a person should not say, 'Is so-and-so like Moshe and Aharon? Is so-and-so like Nadav and Avihu? Is so-and-so like Eldad and Medad?'" By keeping their names anonymous, the Torah ensures that no one can diminish the authority of a contemporary court by comparing its members to specific, named great figures of the past. Rashi clarifies that if someone questions the authority of a current court, saying they are not like Moshe and Aharon, one can respond that they might be like one of the unnamed elders. The Gemara then cites verses from the book of Samuel, where Samuel compares himself to Moshe and Aharon, and also groups Moshe, Aharon, Yerubaal (Gidon), Bedan (Shimshon), Yiftach, and Samuel together. This teaches that even "lightweights" like Shimshon, Yiftach, and Gidon are considered equal to the "heavyweights" like Moshe, Aharon, and Samuel in their respective generations. "Yerubaal in his generation is like Moshe in his generation; Bedan in his generation is like Aharon in his generation; Yiftach in his generation is like Samuel in his generation." This teaches that "even the lightest of the light, if appointed a leader over the community, is considered as the most distinguished of the distinguished." Every generation must accept the Sages of its time.
Further support comes from the verse, "You shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days." The Gemara asks, "Would it enter your mind that a person would go to a judge who was not in his days?" The phrase "who shall be in those days" emphasizes that one must seek guidance from the judge of one's own time, not dismiss contemporary judges by comparing them unfavorably to those of the past. The verse from Kohelet, "Do not say, 'Why were the former days better than these?'" further reinforces this. Rashi explains that this is not a question of wisdom, but a recognition that later generations cannot be like the earlier ones. Therefore, one must accept the Sages of their time.
The Gemara then returns to the narrative of Rabbi Yehoshua taking his stick and money to Rabban Gamliel. A Baraisa describes Rabban Gamliel rising from his chair and kissing Rabbi Yehoshua on the head, saying, "Peace upon you, my Rabbi and my student. My Rabbi, for you taught me Torah publicly; and my student, for I issued a decree upon you, and you fulfilled it like a student." This highlights Rabbi Yehoshua's humility in submitting to the Nasi's authority despite his own stature as Av Beit Din. The Baraisa concludes, "Fortunate is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones. All the more so should the small ones listen to the great ones." The Gemara questions this "all the more so" argument, noting that it is an obligation for the younger to listen to the older. It answers that when the great ones listen to the less great, it inspires the younger generation to make their own "all the more so" argument, realizing the profound importance of following their elders.
We now begin the third chapter, which opens with a new Mishnah. The Mishnah presents several cases regarding the sanctification of the new month. The first case: "The court and all of Israel saw it." The Gemara will later clarify why "all of Israel" is mentioned, as two witnesses are typically sufficient. The common denominator in this and the next case is that "the witnesses were interrogated, but they did not manage to declare 'Sanctified!' until it became dark." In such a scenario, the new month is postponed to the next day. The second case: "The court alone saw it." Since witnesses are required to testify before a court, and here the court members themselves are the observers, "two should stand up and testify before them, and they should declare 'Sanctified! Sanctified!'" This means two members of the court act as witnesses before the remaining members. The third case: "Three saw it, and they are the court." If two of the three act as witnesses, they would testify before only one judge, which is insufficient for a court ruling. Therefore, "two should stand up and seat two of their colleagues with the single judge, and testify before them, and they should declare 'Sanctified! Sanctified!'" This ensures a court of three. The Mishnah concludes, "for an individual is not trusted by himself" to sanctify the month. Rashi clarifies that an individual is not trusted to *declare* the month sanctified, though he can hear testimony; thus, two additional judges are needed for the declaration.
The Gemara begins its analysis of this Mishnah by asking, "Why does it need to teach 'the court and all of Israel saw it'?" If the court saw it, that should be enough; why mention "all of Israel"? The Gemara answers, "It is necessary." One might have thought that since the sighting by the court and all of Israel was so widely publicized, the month should not be postponed, even if there wasn't enough time for sanctification. The Mishnah teaches us that even with such widespread knowledge, if the formal sanctification cannot be completed on the 30th, the month is still postponed to the 31st. The Gemara then asks, "Since it taught 'the court and all of Israel saw it,' why do I need to teach 'the witnesses were interrogated'?" If all of Israel saw it, what need is there for witness interrogation? The Gemara clarifies that these are two separate cases: "It means thus: 'The court and all of Israel saw it,' OR 'the witnesses were interrogated, but they did not manage to declare "Sanctified!" until it became dark.'" In both scenarios, the month is postponed.
The Gemara presses further: "And since it taught 'until it became dark, it is postponed,' why do I need to teach the case of 'interrogation of witnesses' at all?" Both cases teach the same principle: if the process isn't completed by nightfall, the month is postponed. The Gemara responds, "It is necessary." One might have thought that the interrogation of witnesses is like the "beginning of judgment," and the declaration "Sanctified! Sanctified!" is like the "conclusion of judgment." Just as in monetary cases, a court can begin proceedings during the day and conclude them at night, one might have thought that the sanctification of the month could also be concluded at night if the interrogation began during the day. The Mishnah teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara cites a Mishnah that states, "Monetary cases are judged by day and concluded by night." So, one might have assumed the same applies to the sanctification of the month. The Mishnah teaches us otherwise. The Gemara asks, "And why not say that it is indeed so?" Perhaps the sanctification of the month *is* like monetary cases. The Gemara answers by citing a verse concerning the sanctification of the month: "For it is a statute for Israel, a judgment for the God of Yaakov." The Torah refers to the final decision as a "statute" (chok) and the process as a "judgment" (mishpat). The Gemara explains that the "statute" refers to the conclusion of judgment. Just as "judgment" (the proceedings) must occur by day, so too the "statute" (the conclusion) must occur by day. Thus, the sanctification of the month is different from monetary cases; both the proceedings and the final declaration must be completed during the day.
The Gemara then analyzes the case where "the court saw it" and "two should stand up and testify before them." It asks, "Why? Should not hearing be inferior to seeing?" If the entire court saw the moon, why do two of them need to testify as witnesses before the others? Their direct observation should be sufficient. Rabbi Zeira answers, "For example, if they saw it at night." At night, one cannot testify before a court, as courts do not convene at night. Therefore, even though they saw it, their observation at night does not constitute valid testimony. The next day, since there is no moon visible, they need two witnesses to testify to what they saw the previous night. The Gemara then addresses the case where "three saw it, and they are the court." Again, "two should stand up... and testify before them." The same question arises: "Should not hearing be inferior to seeing?" And if the answer is again, "For example, if they saw it at night," the Gemara asks, "That is the same case!" Why repeat it? The Gemara explains that the latter part of the case is necessary to teach that "an individual is not trusted by himself." One might have thought that just as in monetary cases, where a single expert judge can issue a ruling, the same would apply to the sanctification of the month. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. The Gemara asks, "And why not say that it is indeed so?" Perhaps an individual expert *can* sanctify the month. The Gemara responds, "There was no greater expert in Israel than Moshe Rabbeinu." Yet, God told Moshe, "until you have Aharon with you," as it is written, "And Hashem said to Moshe and to Aharon in the land of Egypt, saying, 'This month shall be for you.'" This implies a minimum of two. Tosafot explains that since a court cannot have an even number, Moshe and Aharon imply the need for a third, making a court of three. Thus, even the greatest expert cannot sanctify the month alone; a court of three is required. This is why the second case in the Mishnah is necessary, to teach that even if three judges saw the moon, two must testify before the third, who then must be joined by two more judges to form a valid court of three for the declaration.
A final note clarifies that the grandfather of Rabban Gamliel was Rabban Gamliel HaZaken, and his grandson was Rabbeinu HaKadosh. Therefore, when the Gemara mentions Rabban Gamliel's tradition from his grandfather, it refers to Rabban Gamliel HaZaken. Similarly, where the Gemara asks about "the reason of the house of Rabbi," some emend it to "the reason of Rabban Gamliel" to maintain consistency with the context.